The court identified the many ways that civilian recordings of police activity are beneficial by capturing critical information:

“To record what there is the right for the eye to see or the ear to hear corroborates or lays aside subjective impressions for objective facts. Hence to record is to see and hear more accurately.”

“Recordings also facilitate discussion because of the ease in which they can be widely distributed via different forms of media.”

“Bystander videos provide different perspectives than police and dashboard cameras, portraying circumstances and surroundings that police videos often do not capture.”

“Civilian video also fills the gaps created when police choose not to record video or withhold their footage from the public.”

Importantly, the court concluded that recordings of on-duty police have “contributed greatly to our national discussion of proper policing.” Among other things, they have “improved professional reporting, as video content generated by witnesses and bystanders has become a common component of news programming.” As a result, recordings have “spurred action at all levels of government to address police misconduct and to protect civil rights.”